Linux-Advocacy Digest #268, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows "speed" (".")
Re: Communism (True Patriot)
Re: Communism (GunnerŠ)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (Barry Manilow)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ATA standards ("Darren Winsper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:39:14 +1200
> Sorry. No. It was widely reported, though.
Dang. Does anyone know of any such agreements where these sorts of terms
can be seen? (No netscape installations).
It may sound like I don't believe you, but I just prefer not to judge until
I've seen the evidence =)
Also, I'd *really* like to read the way MS would word "Thou shalt not
install competitors software".
> I told the guy to download Netscape and put it on and he looked at me like
> I just asked him to have sex with his Mom. This was clearly "non-doable".
Har har har =)
Stage 4 of the MS MonkeyPlanet (tm) conspiracy - make the newest monkeys
unaware of software from anywhere but Microsoft.
I'm waiting for them to try and change the official definition of software
to "Computer programs produced by Microsoft".
> > Your sysadmin friends are lying, is what gives. NT on that hardware
will
> > definitely serve at least 4 clients.
>
> Granted you may be right. Still, 200 versus 4 is a rather radical
> indictment, is it not?
It's unfair to assume it can't handle more than four clients, four was all
we had to connect to it. I'm sure it could have handled ten =D
> Why are ppl always replacing Warp servers with NT servers? Sounds like
> mass insanity to me.
Ha! You talk like the world makes sense most of the time ;)
> Hahaha. Yes, what a joke. Have you ever seen the look of confusion
> and terror on a typical MCSE's face when faced with this thing called
> a command line? LOL.
I've seen people confused by the text from login!
Welcome to bla
Username:
"I can't use this, it's too complicated"
Not MCSE's of course, but then I've talked to MCSE's who told me that
Windows 95 was fully 32 bit. Granted they didn't do the MCP course on 95,
but that's irrelevant... I think the problem is that the MCSE seems to make
people think they're qualified to comment on any computer-related subject =(
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:34:30 -0400
From: True Patriot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,uk.misc,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:26:33 -0700, GunnerŠ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said GunnerŠ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:43:20
>>>Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> Actually, brainwashing is much easier to accomplish than you
>>>>> might think.
>>>>
>>>>The military is quite good at it.
>>>>
>>>Evidently.. so is the DNC....
>>
>>That's the DNRC, but now we're going to have to kill you, and everyone
>>who reads this message.
>
>bring a lunch.
>
>Gunner
>
bring me a beer gunner, you lazy little piece of shit. None of that american
piss either, I want a beer I can taste. Now move it, boy.
***The NRA: Teaching Children To Shoot Each Other Responsibly***
------------------------------
From: GunnerŠ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:45:26 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>Tight regulation of the businesses,undercover agents.
>>>
>>Oh..so then Mathew..you are advocating a Police State then?
>
>In a casino? Hell yes! When you pay for a hooker, you should get your
>money's worth, and when you lose money gambling, you want to be sure
>your cluelessness doesn't end up supporting the mob. Unless you're not
>thinking very hard.
I was just questioning your evident mindset carried out to the logical
conclusion, based on many of your posts. You seem quite in love with
the State as the end all and be all.
>
>By the way, you *do* realize they already have cameras everywhere and a
>great deal of security in casinos, right?
No shit? Well shazam! Imagine that! Private property with cameras and
all sorts of stuff. Gooolly. But..based on your postings in the past..
you seem to think that this would be a good idea for the public at
large. Or am I wrong here thinking that you are not in favor of Big
Brother? Just remember.. your post will be kept for ammunition and
used against you down the road when you post further "I Love the
Government" postings. So say what you want. <EG>
>
>>Why am I not surprised.....
>
>Because you assume you're so smart that you don't have any human
>failings that will cause you grief. Or at least you pretend to. We all
>do; I think that's how its supposed to work.
Mathew. Im 47 yrs old, with more life experience behind me than I
really care to remember. Good AND bad. I know well what my weaknesses
are, as well as my strengths. I try to correct the weaknesses as I
can, and emphasize my strengths.
I am quite opinionated, not from some knee jerk sense of outrage, but
from life experiences and a pretty good handle on how things work.
Ive met people you wouldn't believe, Ive experienced things you can't
imagine. Ive seen folks like you come and go.. and I was not impressed
then, nor am I now.
My "smartness" is no more than average, but I have a certain amount of
low cunning <EG> bolstered up by having stubbed my toe more than once
or twice in life, and having seen others do the same. Some lived, some
didn't. There but for the grace of God, go I.
I am a strict Constitutionalist, and a libertarian (small "L"), and am
quite politically active ,well read, and well traveled.
Reading your posts, I DO think you just fell off the manure wagon, and
while you seem to have a strong sense of Idealism, you appear to have
no common sense to counter balance it. Dangerous combination. I figure
you will get the nonsense kicked out of you in the next 10 yrs, and
then we can have a conversation based on reality, not your :wishes and
emotions:
I could care less how you "feel" about something, but do care about
the Facts, and son..your real weak on that part. Work on it.
Gunner
=========================================================
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 05:48:01 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
>> >> >topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You stand
>> >> >convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
>> >>
>> >> Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
>> >
>> >So much for accuracy and moderation, wouldn't you think ?
>>
>> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have said. Or perhaps I wasn't trying to
>> state a case, but merely observing how frivolous your comments are.
>
>Beep, wrong answer. Those weren't my comments. Try again next time.
Well, that's what happens when you so ineptly <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>.
>Then again, you said it that you don't care wether they are those of the
>person you are arguing with or some other anonymous trollern, so...
[...]
>> >Indeed. And there goes your integrity...
>>
>> Oh, yes, I know:
>
>Good, we're making progress.
Timing, timing....
[Translation: Paul's a dishonest little shit who just played a trick on
the reader.]
>> /Because Paul Says So!/
>
>Not at all. Because you exhibit a callous disregard towards getting your
>attributions straight when debating.
I'm not the one that snipped the attributions, hambone.
><QUOTE>
>Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
></QUOTE>
Way to show context, dude. Cute. Ben would have been proud.
>> ><SNIP> Some more of the same </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >Umm. You did: "The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in
>> >> >the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC"
>> >>
>> >> The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority of
>> >> computers. Note your category error.
>> >
>> ><MAX> Models number ? </MAX>
>>
>> Model numbers. Not models number. That's not a category error, that's
>> a request for some substantiation of your argument. You don't expect me
>
>Ditto.
No "ditto". Do you have model numbers? Or even a more explicit
description of the hardware issues these guys were discussing? Was it
merely idle chatter? What parts were involved? Were they a bunch of
flakes likewise defending a monopoly? You're leaving us in the dark
here, suspecting that you have nothing but an argument from ignorance,
and you're trying to milk it as long as you can.
>> to believe that I'm wrong simply on your say-so, do you?
>
>Where did I say you were wrong ? Your eyes are playing tricks on you. I
>asked for the model numbers of the microcoputers developed in the early '80s
>that used microsoft's ROM BASIC.
I don't have them. Once you get them, check the proportions. I could
be wrong, but as a good swag, and based on the corroborating evidence
published elsewhere, Microsoft was monopolizing with BASIC.
All I'm asking for is a reasonable doubt. If you can't provide one,
then I'm afraid I must presume I'm correct. We'll leave whether anyone
else reading my words besides you thinks this is also correct entirely
up to them. So now we're left with you, and an argument from ignorance.
>> >Don't sweat it by posting contrived handwaving.
>>
>> Is that what that was? :-)
>
>Mirror of your debating tactics. So Max, how do you like 'em ?
You're pretending, again.
>> >It's for entertainment purposes only and to show how you use double
>> >standards.
>>
>> Perhaps Mr. Franklin's real meaning, then, was that one cannot be both
>> perfectly accurate and perfectly moderate in dealing with every
>> statement nor every case. I doubt he was saying "one must always be
>
>You get *that* from the Franklin's quote below !? Must be the fact that
>english is a second language to me then. :)
Do you interrupt people in the middle of their sentence in real life,
too? No, I do not "get that", as in I do not think that is explicitly
what he meant. I said that it was perhaps true, and we can't rule it
out, AFAIK, so, yes, perhaps it was his meaning. But I was saying, "I
doubt he was saying 'one must always be
>> sure not to insult the boorish", as everyone around here seems to think
>> it means.
>
>It's the one of the best way to loose an argument.
You can't lose an argument to someone who is boorish. Its like having a
duel but only one guy has a gun.
>When people resort to
>insults, it generally means that they are out of arguments. Hard to convince
>someone that you just insulted IMO.
You might notice that this is not a private exchange, so perhaps I'm not
trying to convince you at all, and believe that those who I am trying to
convince will find my arguments reasonable, and my insults moderate.
>Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. :)
Why does anyone bother to post that?
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:03:01 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Apr 2001
> >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >BTW, for a person who hates Microsoft software
> >so much, you sure don't seem to have much of
> >a problem using Windows98 and Netscape. Don't
> >try to deny it... the info's in your headers.
I do have a problem using Windows98 Stephen. It gives me problems all
the time. :(
I didn't say I hated MS SW. I am just pointing out that it is often
rather inferior to other SW on the market. MS may have some decent
SW. My main complaint about MS is the corporation, not the quality of
the products. I will leave that for folks like Max to comment on.
:) Like most folks, I am more or less forced to use Windows. There
are some apps I really really like that only run on Windows. For
instance: Yahoo Messenger and AIM. As another example: voice
chatting. I also hope to get into some videoconferencing with a
webcam if I can. Also, I can play just about any movie file on the
Internet with Win98 (Media Player, Quicktime, and Real Player) and I
can listen to Real Player audio. I cannot do any of this on my other
OS here. Also, the subwoofers on my speakers only have Windows
drivers (!!!!!!???). Drivers for speakers??!!
Didn't you know that the world is full of folks like me, who hate MS
and maybe even hate MS SW but feel they are forced to use it? That is
why so many people are so angry, Stephen. People feel they do not
have a choice about Windows. They are forced to use a product they
hate by a corporation they hate. And that is infuriating, like being
forced to live with/work for/sleep with your worst enemy. Many, many
users of MS SW hate MS and hate various MS apps. I meet them all the
time. Such sentiments are very common nowadays.
I am also spending a lot of time in Windows trying to learn as much as
I can about the OS. That is because I make some money as a consultant
tutoring Windows users and fixing Windows problems. Therefore it
behooves me to know the OS inside out.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:03:46 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:34:49
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> >> >MickeySoft paid Sun $20,000,000.
>> >>
>> >> I would expect, as typical, that this is a report of a speculation. The
>> >> figure is undisclosed, and is actually undiscoverable, AFAIK, unless you
>> >> have an army of accountants and unlimited access to Microsoft's books
>> >> (and you'd still need brass balls, because you'd *still* be
>> >> speculating.)
>> >
>> >Its quite simple Max. goto http://www.sun.com ... its where I read it.
>> >The sum was disclosed there.
>>
>> http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.html
>>
>> You are correct, apparently, though I still have my doubts. I can't
>> really see any sense in the idea of being 'too skeptical' when it comes
>> to Microsoft.
>
>Unfortunately, these days it is getting harder to ferret out the truth
>of these things. The problem is the press reports really don't give any
>reasons or print any of the nitty-gritty that went on behind locked
>doors. Long term analysis of press releases for accuracy and finding
>alternate sources for cross checking claims can I come to any
>conclusions that may be somewhat near accurate.
> Do you find Suns' site a little hard to navigate? I do.
It took me almost twenty minutes to find the right page. Their search
engine is one of those that doesn't seem to understand the concept of
all words being mandatory in the actual text. Other than there being
too much crud to wade through and some of those disfunctionaly horrible
"menu/list boxes", it wasn't too bad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:12:48 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:24:14
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:03:07 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> Black & white requires no backlight, gives longer battery life. I am
>> >> not sure what "integrated Internet" is supposed to mean. Palm devices
>> >> certainly have browsers and email and all that.
>>
>> > I mean that what little internet capabilities the Palm has, it's
>> > an after thought and usually hacked together.
>>
>> How is the Palm's Internet capability "hacked together"? Please be
>> specific, because I think you are making stuff up again.
>
>Well, for one, it's an after thought. It seems that the only apps
>that are internet aware are third party ones which each have their
>own interface. There doesn't seem to be a consisent internet paradigm,
>it appears like it was "hacked together" late in the game to try to
>compete.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! He means "its not Windows".
>PocketPC, OTOH, seems to have Internet pervasive just like Windows
>where every app uses a common Internet access method and many apps
>are integrated with Internet Explorer.
Its a Windows desktop on a unit they try to pretend is small enough to
compete with handhelds. Its a raving joke.
>> What about battery life? If you don't think that is important, I would
>> have to say you probably haven't tried to actually use a PDA in real life.
>
>Well, if all I need is very, very basic PDA functionality (calendar, todo,
>and contacts) I'll use my phone which has about the same functionality as
>a Palm device and it has a built in cell phone!
Except a phone doesn't have all those whacky little inconsistent things
called third party applications. Kind of like a PocketPC, in that
regard.
>When I want a true hand-held computer with almost full desktop functionality
>in my hand, I'll choose PocketPC. I don't need to pay way to much for a
>black and white over-priced Rolodex.
When you need a disfunctional little gadget that has Windows on it, go
for the PocketPC. The first (and last) one I saw was about seven months
ago. One of the guys at work got one. He couldn't get the PCMCIA card
to work at all, and since there's no floppy it was kind of useless. And
only half the size of a small laptop.
But that doesn't answer the question of whether Rolodexes (Rolodexi?)
are over-priced, or just worth more. A bizarre think for Chad to say,
as either reading makes the Palm look good, and the PocketPC look bad.
I suppose it was an inadvertent slip.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:14:12 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>Don't you find it rather funny that Microsoft isn't using Outlook Express?
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Here's the auto-reply I got:
>> From: Microsoft Anti-Piracy Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> X-Mailer: Kana 5.0
So what's Kana 5.0?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:26:29 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 05:07:28
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:14:08
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> >Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
>> >> >the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
>> >> >component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>> >>
>> >> The same way you imagine that software has functional purpose but is
>> >> still covered by copyright.
>> >
>> >I can't parse any meaning at all out of that. A cookbook has functional
>> >purpose but is not exempt from copyright.
>>
>> The recipes *in* the cookbook have no functional purpose, nor does the
>> book itself. They may have functional value (another, related concept
>> I've used, which may have confused you if you didn't recognize that they
>> are distinct), but they have no functional purpose. Software has
>> functional purpose: it "runs", it "does something". If it does not
>> execute and perform the intended functions, it is "wrong".
>
>Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a set of
>instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may follow a cookbook.
Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object, *doing*
things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's don't "follow"
instructions "just like a cook may follow a cookbook". That's a
ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more about software than to
think it holds up. Care to try again?
[...]
>> >> If the part were 'doing its own work', then it wouldn't require other
>> >> parts to do work for it, would it?
>> >
>> >Imagine two jugglers who sometimes throw their balls to each
>> >other. Is one juggler derived from the other? Will the act work the
>> >same if the other isn't there to throw the ball back at the right time?
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, one can copyright a juggling performance, but one
>> cannot copyright a juggler.
>
>The point is that if you have legally obtained a library, you have the
>right for it to do anything you throw at it.
Yes, but do you have the right to give others that right?
>> Is the juggler's performance "derived" from
>> the other juggler's performance? It seems so to me, and to the courts,
>> as both jugglers will share all rights to whatever act they develop.
>
>What does that mean? Are you going to claim that tossing a ball back
>and forth with one person forever contaminates your right to do the
>same with a different partner?
A juggler, as an artist, has a valid copyright claim on his artistic
work, which would include any unique routines he has developed. Other's
cannot perform "his act" without his permission. How dubious the claim
that a particular juggling performance merits such protection as showing
originality necessary to merit consideration as intellectual property is
entirely beside the point. You started the gedanken experiment, I'm
just trying to deal with it.
>> And should one of them go on to bigger and better things, any act which
>> he develops in the future which is based on the original act is, in
>> fact, derived from it, yes.
>
>I am talking about the situation where each has a pre-defined library
>of routines to mirror the software case and the performance involves
>time-sliced exchanges of control of the ball|cpu.
There are multiple balls in juggling. Even with multiple CPUs in
computing, the analogy simply doesn't hold. If I understand what you're
trying to say correctly, the ball itself would have to be this mythical
motivating force which allows software to be "followed" by a CPU, but
not allow it to simply "follow" itself.
>The individual
>parts are unchanged and certainly can't become 'derived' from
>each other by mere proximity after their development.
That wouldn't make sense if your analogy *did* hold. Yes, the two
jugglers may well have a method that is "derived" from their joint
experience, and under the extremist form of copyright which a gedanken
experiment calls for, it might well allow protection as IP, and one of
them could have a claim against the other's derived works. A very very
small claim, perhaps, but we're talking principles, not royalties, here.
And you can't use royalties with GPL software. Well, you can, there's
nothing that stopping a producer from paying an author royalties.
There's just currently no reason we'd presume that they would do so.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:30:07 GMT
Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
>> the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
>> component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>
>It does not.
This follows from a "thought experiment gone to ground" example that Les
and I have previously discussed, Jeffrey. He's simply postulating it
here to compare and contrast my current statements to the previous ones
that seemed to support this case.
>> Yet the GPL prohibits distribution of GPL'd components that link
>> to anything but standard system libraries.
>
>Exactly. The GPL's terms apply to the GPLed code, not to the separate
>library. If you want to distribute the GPLed code, you must also
>distribute the source code to the entire program under the terms of the
>GPL, including any libraries used by the program (ignoring the GPL's
>exceptions). This is an obligation on the distributor of the GPLed
>code, nothing more. If he can't meet this obligation, then he can't
>distribute the GPLed code.
I think you've misconstrued the example quite a bit. If I understand it
correctly, the library is the GPL component. The program is not GPL.
Les' thought experiment requires one to postulate that it is possible to
write a program to use a library which does not yet exist. The fatal
flaw, I think, is obvious, but using this trick he has convinced himself
that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA standards
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 07:39:41 +0100
In article <9a0133$5c9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Langenberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LaTeX's style of "write what you mean, not how it should look" is what
> HTML was meant to be. It just mutated into something else...
...and then (mostly) back again with HTML 4. If you make proper use of
CSS, you can remove virtually all layout-specific code from HTML.
> Replacing HTML completely is likely impossible at this point; there's
> just too much of it in existance (far more than Gopher's pages could
> ever hope to have). What the web *could* use is a page layout language
> to live alongside HTML - sortof a Postscript-lite. Such a language
> could give all those graphical designers something to work in (with
> nice, shiny happy layout tools) that would guarantee everything on the
> page will go exactly where they want it. And, so long as it's still
> text-based, CGI scripts could still generate them on-the-fly.
>
> Perhaps it could be the HTLL, or HyperText Layout Language...
>
> And if it succeeds, maybe it'll get the graphics folk someplace to play
> without having to mutate HTML anymore.
I don't see what you could gain by using something like that instead of
HTML+CSS. Most of the layout-specific crap in HTML is due to legacies
from the good old IE/NS <=3 days.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hofstadters law: "Everything takes longer than you expect, even when
you take into account Hofstadters law."
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
